Shelby Says Tanker Contest Favors Boeing

The chances of the new Air Force refueling tanker being built in Mobile look bleak.

The Pentagon will release the final terms of the $40 billion tanker contest during a 3:00 p.m. news conference (Click here to watch it live).

Pentagon officials told lawmakers the new rules are unambiguous and fair, and should allow both competitors to bid and win. But Senator Richard Shelby disagrees. Shelby, who has seen the final Request For Proposal (RFP), believes the new rules favor Boeing.

"The RFP clearly favors a smaller, less capable airframe and I am concerned the Department may not get two competitive bids in this process," Shelby said. "It is an illusion of a fair competition in which the warfighter and the taxpayer lose.”

Northrop Grumman told the Pentagon it would not compete unless significant changes were made from a draft released in September.

Northrop Grumman/EADS planned to build the tankers in Mobile after they won the contest in 2008. But Boeing filed a protest which was upheld by the Government Accountability Office. Defense Secretary Robert Gates then canceled the contract.

Other Reaction
Governor Bob Riley
“The Air Force absolutely made the right decision two years ago when it selected the Northrop Grumman-EADS team to build these tankers. It’s a shame D.C. politics got in the way because, without question, that decision was in the best interests of our warfighters. If a new decision on tankers is based on merit, value and mission capability, then the Air Force will once again select Northrop Grumman-EADS. If they base it on D.C. politics, then they may not.”

Senator Jeff Sessions
“The Alabama delegation has repeatedly expressed our concern to Department of Defense officials that the draft RFP released in September was flawed and unfairly tilted the playing field to one competitor over the other. I’m disappointed that those problems have not been satisfactorily addressed in the final RFP. Despite assurances that hundreds of suggestions would be carefully considered, it appears only one substantive change regarding life-cycle cost was made.

“The selection criteria remains geared toward a low-cost shoot-out, effectively requiring that the Air Force’s number one acquisition priority be purchased based solely on cost, not on delivering capability to the war fighter or value to the taxpayer. As it stands, the RFP completely abandons the goal of selecting a transformational aircraft, which Air Force officials have repeatedly indicated is needed to provide additional game-changing airlift and transport capabilities to the fleet.

“This solicitation has been doctored to such a degree that the team that clearly and decisively won in 2008, Northrop Grumman/EADS, fears it may not have a realistic chance under the altered guidelines. The RFP is a lengthy technical document, and industry experts must review it closely before final conclusions can be made. I look forward to hearing the company’s analysis, but it’s clear to me that in a selection process of this magnitude, competition is critical. Northrop Grumman/EADS’ withdrawal would be tragic for the military and for U.S. taxpayers, and would leave an irreparable stain on the Department of Defense acquisition process. We know from experience that sole-source bidding leads to less capability, more costs, and more fraud.”

U.S. Rep. Jo Bonner
“Five months after the Air Force released its flawed draft request for proposal, senior Pentagon officials have presented a final proposal which hardly deviates from the original. While the full details will require more study, the Pentagon has apparently ignored calls from Congress and industry for an aerial tanker that meets evolving mission requirements, and has endorsed a minimum capability aircraft design that sadly appears to favor one of the bidders. Two months after coming to office, the Obama administration issued a memorandum instructing its senior executive branch officials against sole-source, non competitive government contracts. It is profoundly disappointing that the Pentagon has chosen to create the potential for a non competitive situation not by setting the highest mission requirements to benefit our warfighter, but rather by lowering the criteria by which the competitors are evaluated.”

Randy Belote (Northrop Grumman)
"Northrop Grumman acknowledges that today it has received the final
Request for Proposals for the U.S. Air Force KC-X Tanker Modernization
Program.

"Northrop Grumman will analyze the RFP and defer further public
comments until its review of the document has been completed."

Leigh Perry-Herndon (The Mobile Area Chamber of Commerce)
"The Mobile Area Chamber of Commerce defers to Northrop Grumman and EADS, and we fully support whatever decision they make regarding a bid on the tanker, as it is ultimately a business decision for them. At this time, we do not have a full understanding of the changes in the new RFP released today as it relates to the draft that was released in September 2009. However, we believe the decision of the U.S. Air Force to award the contract to Northrop Grumman in 2008 was the appropriate decision based on the best value for the war fighter and the American taxpayers. If the current RFP uses similar guidelines for best value, the Chamber believes Northrop Grumman and EADS will emerge as winners once again.

A four-state partnership dedicated to building the next aerospace corridor, known as The Aerospace Alliance, supports a dual procurement that would benefit both Northrop Grumman and Boeing and provide the most expeditious means of replacing the aging tanker, creating up to 100,000 jobs throughout all 50 states, including thousands of jobs in Alabama, Florida, Louisiana and Mississippi. Awarding half the contract to Boeing and half to Northrop Grumman and EADS would bring twice as many jobs online at a time when so many American workers need jobs."